[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I'm very surprised anyone would object to this. This tag, which is
> common to mailman lists, is enormously useful for e-mail filtering.
> It certainly helps me distinguish mailing list messages from the
> depressingly vast array of e-mail I already get just by scanning my
> inbox.
If for some reason you don't want to filter list mail into a separate folder
for each list, and you _really_ want the subject noise, it's trivial to do
-- just insert a mail filter on the SMTP sender of the mail list everyone
else does, only have it insert whatever you like into the Subject line
instead of filing into an appropriate folder. But please make sure you
remove the noise again if you reply to such mails.
The fact that GNU mailman ships with this crap on by default is a serious
bug, IMHBCO. It's not 50/50, because adding it locally is so much easier
than removing it locally, for those users who have a strong preference
either way.
It is far more of a problem to _remove_ the noise if it's been added by a
misguided mail admin. You can manage to remove it for the majority of posts,
but when a message is cross-posted to another such list, you get its crap
also polluting the subject line too, and you can't easily filter that out.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> The List-Id header is there precisely for the purpose of mail
> filtering,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> That is why all GNU mailman mailing lists have a header line:
> X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Both of these give false positives. Consider the situation where you have
such a filter in place, but have unsubscribed from the list or are reading
it with 'grep' because you've been out of the office.
Your colleague/friend/cat sees a message he knows you need to see, but will
probably miss due to the circumstances above. He bounces it to you, headers
intact, or to another internal mailing list or something. Your mail filter
then sticks it in the folder for the original list and you still don't see
it. It's rare, but it's happened to me at least once, before I fixed my
filters.
The only 100% reliable way to filter such mail is on the SMTP reverse-path,
which depending on your MTA is usually either the Sender: or Return-Path:
header by the time it gets to your procmail filter.
:0w:$MAILDIR/lists/Xdev/.procmail-lock
* ^Return-Path:.*[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|$HOME/bin/MHstore +lists/Xdev
Not that it really matters _that_ much, but if you're encouraging people to
filter sensibly, you might as well give a 100% reliable solution.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Enjoy many lists whom use the subject line listname annoyance in
> complete peace and harmony, and without getting sucked in to 50/50
> flamewars.
As I said, it's not 50/50. It's been fixed on this list now, thankfully.
> This leaves you tonnes more time to participate in other,
> much more worthy flamewars that might also seem equally pointless,
> but for which procmail can't help. ;o)
Like Reply-To:? Now the status of the list has changed, is the decision to
have a Reply-To: header added also up for reconsideration? :)
/me runs...
--
dwmw2
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
